Florida in cross hairs for its lax training requirements to carry hidden guns

Florida in cross hairs for its lax training requirements to carry hidden guns

This is a discussion on Florida in cross hairs for its lax training requirements to carry hidden guns within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Puppy
The actual LEO statistics are interesting. Fist in a real gun fight accuracy goes to pot. Cops who qualify at 90% ...

The actual LEO statistics are interesting. Fist in a real gun fight accuracy goes to pot. Cops who qualify at 90% usually hit no better than 20 % in gun fights, in part of course for the reasons stated.

What is scary to me is that the FBI report which came out last fall showed that the average B.G. trained more than the the average LEO and had more "hit" in street fights.

As to the 2nd fanatics who think any idiotic yahoo should be able to have a gun with no training, I say B.S.

Let the yelling at me begin. Sorry guys but plain old common sense has got to play a role in society and a hell of a lot of people don't have any.

Maybe you think the 2nd gives some macho retarded nose picker without the sense God gave a gnat to carry and wave around a .44 Magnum anytime and place he wants but I'm not buying it.

I took training, go to the range at least once a week, know the law and constantly read gun forums etc. I earned the right to carry my gun and I'm not interested in sharing the streets with some untrained moron who fingers a trigger as often as he fingers his nose and genitals, who knows nothing about the laws or anything about a gun except how to pull the trigger.... how not when.

When I know personally of "unloaded" guns going off, of things like some yahoo in Arkansas a few years back who decided to show off to his girlfriend by playing Russian Roulette.... with a semiautomatic , and read how regularly idiots plug each other with unloaded guns

I want people to have some semblance of brains, common sense, experience, education and training before being turned loose with a gun.

Maybe you think the 2nd gives some macho retarded nose picker without the sense God gave a gnat to carry and wave around a .44 Magnum anytime and place he wants but I'm not buying it.
....

While I know you are mostly ranting, this is an absurd statement. Emphasis added to the patent absurdity.

In debate we call this a straw man. It's when someone attempts to modify the platform of their opposition to include an indefensible position. In this case, the position that people who oppose your view think the 2nd amendment gives people the right to brandish. That is not the case. People who do not agree with you cannot be painted with such a broad brush, their reasons for disagreement with your views are as varied and colorful as the people who hold them.

Though carrying a concealed weapon requires a state permit, gun owners need only take a gun-safety course and show they know how to safely fire a real bullet. That's not the case in at least eight states -- where applicants must be able to hit a bulls-eye repeatedly.

We shot at a silhouette and except for a couple of applicants the targets looked like they got hit with a shotgun at 30 yards,I'm not opposed to somebody carrying a concealed weapon to have enough knowledge so as not to accidently shoot themselves or somebody else trying to load or unload it.When i learned to shoot my dad didn't hand me a gun and say there ya go figure it out for yourself,He taught me basic gun safety then we went out to a safe area and with a huge backstop he let me load and shoot his JC higgins 22 semi automatic rifle.I still have that rifle in my safe.

While I know you are mostly ranting, this is an absurd statement. Emphasis added to the patent absurdity.

In debate we call this a straw man. It's when someone attempts to modify the platform of their opposition to include an indefensible position. In this case, the position that people who oppose your view think the 2nd amendment gives people the right to brandish. That is not the case. People who do not agree with you cannot be painted with such a broad brush, their reasons for disagreement with your views are as varied and colorful as the people who hold them.

+1

I'm not sure anyone could convince me that a society with absolutely no restrictions at all on anyone's possession or carrying of any firearm of any type would not be preferable to the one we have. We pay for our safety with liberty. That is, every increase in our safety comes at the expense of a decrease in our freedom.

I tend to agree with puppy about some kind of training to walk down main street with a gun. As long as you stay on your property then I don't care if you know which end the bullet comes out of or not, just stay home.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This 'lax training' is an issue created by anti-s and furthered by firearms elitists. Explain to my why only a select few should be allowed their rights to protect themselves.

It is bad enough that many cheap handguns are no longer available, sad that we have to pay so much to get a 'permit' to exercises our rights, but absolutely immoral to add the expense of lenghty training, which may be difficult or impossible for some to complete due to cost, age, handicap, or other obligations.

I agree. Provided a training requirement is not used as an exclusionary method, I think it's our responsibility to be well-trained, else the exercise of this particular right serves little purpose. There's nothing elitist about it. If you're healthy enough to use a firearm, you're healthy enough to practice/train with it, however limited that training might be.